logo
When you want to move, does your brain know before you've decided?

When you want to move, does your brain know before you've decided?

The Hindua day ago

It is the end of a long, hard work day and all you feel like doing is flop on the sofa and watch TV. Your eyes move to something on the screen and watch it for a few minutes, then you think to yourself: 'I wonder what's on elsewhere…'. So you reach for the TV remote and switch the channel.
At this precise moment, let's freeze frame and ask: how did this simple decision unfold?
Which happened first: the conscious recognition of the intention to move your arm or the brain activity required for the movement?
For a long time, people grappled with this as a 'chicken or egg' question and arrived at only philosophical answers, not scientific ones. Indeed, for many years the question was actually believed to be outside the purview of science.
The international chain
In the early 1980s, American neuroscientist Benjamin Libet published his pioneering work exploring what scientists now call the intentional chain.
In its entirety, the intentional chain entails an intent (the desire to change the channel in the example above), an action (reaching for the remote), and an effect (e.g. sounds/sights from a different channel). Due to the technical challenges involved, it wasn't possible for scientists to study the intentional chain from beginning to end — until now.
In a study published recently in PLoS Biology, Jean-Paul Noel from the University of Minnesota in the US and collaborators from the US, the UK, and Switzerland, reported an experiment in which they selectively targeted each element of the intentional chain, one by one.
They found that conscious recognition of the intent to move coincides with activation in the M1 cortical area, the part of the brain controlling voluntary limb movements. One surprise was a difference in the timing of conscious recognition: the perception of movement and the brain activity corresponding to this intent.
First study of its kind
The study's participant was a tetraplegic person outfitted with a brain implant in his M1 area (a.k.a. the primary motor cortex). Electrical impulses from the implant stimulated the area. This setup, called a brain-machine interface, used with a device called neuromuscular electrical stimulator (NMES), which activated forearm muscles to cause hand movements, made it possible for the researchers to activate or inactivate individual components of the intentional chain in the study.
A particular hand movement was of interest in this setup. The participant held a ball in his hand. When he squeezed it, a sound was emitted exactly 300 mslater. This was the environmental effect, the last piece of the intentional chain. During the experiment, the participant was asked to watch a clock on a computer screen. Depending on the specific trial, he had to report the reading on the clock — at the time he felt the urge to move his hand, the time he moved his hand or the time he heard an audio tone.
This was the first study to look in the M1 area in the context of subjective intention of voluntary actions. The researchers found that the timeline of activity in this area was somewhat different than that reported for other brain areas in previous research. Specifically, all the other areas had been activated prior to intention and action — whereas M1 showed activity before but also during a voluntary action.
This makes sense given that M1 is the final stop in the brain, before the signal moves to the spinal cord and finally to muscles of the hand.
Rearing up
Normally, when you intend to move your right hand to pick up an object or lift your foot up to kick a ball, the desire for voluntary movement is reflected as electrical activity in specific parts of the brain. Even before Libet conducted his foundational work, German scientist Hans Helmut Kornhuber placed electrodes along the heads of participants in a study who each made a voluntary decision — to press a button any time they felt like it. He conducted this study in the 1960s. Kornhuber found that in the moments leading up to an individual pressing the button, the electrodes recorded a gradual increase in the strength of an electric signal, which he called the readiness potential.
Think of it as the brain gearing up to act. This meant that if these same brain parts were stimulated with electric signals, one could manufacture in the individual an urge to move the hand or the foot.
Kornhuber's work, later confirmed by others, proved there was electrical activity in the brain before the individual performed a voluntary action. Subsequent research showed that certain brain circuits are activated before an individual is even aware of their intention to perform a voluntary movement.
In the new study, Noel & co. explored the question: when do we become aware of a decision we are about to make?
Interesting patterns
In the first round with their setup, the researchers studied the full intentional chain. They recorded electrical activity in the participant's M1 area caused by the intent to move his hand using functional MRI. They recorded any subsequent movement of that hand with NMES. Finally, they recorded the sound of the participant squeezing the ball in his hand. Thus, they had an objective way to measure each step of the intentional chain — a significant departure from previous studies in which researchers depended on participants' responses themselves.
When the researchers compared the objective measurements to the participant's subjective perceptions, some interesting patterns emerged. For example, when the team asked the participant to report the time at which he developed a conscious awareness of his intention, his answer suggested his perception preceded actual electrical activity recorded by the MRI. Similarly, when asked to report the time at which he perceived his hand began to move, the researcher found his perception preceded the signal recorded by NMES.
In the next round, the researchers used NMES to move the participant's hand, thus bypassing the subjective intent and therefore electrical activity in the brain. This time, the participant perceived that his hand moved at a time well after the measured electric signal. When the researchers blocked the hand movement signal from NMES, while keeping the intent and effect parts of the chain intact, the participant perceived his intention to occur much earlier — more so than the full intentional chain. In either case the difference was only in the order of milliseconds, but for the brain this is an eternity.
The role of M1
The work of Patrick Haggard at University College London may help understand these results better. Haggard & co. asked participants in a study to report the timing of an action (pressing a keyboard button, say) and the timing of an effect of their action (a colour changing on the computer monitor). The team's results showed that participants perceived a shorter time interval between a voluntary action and its effect — called the intentional binding — than what was objectively recorded. In this context, Noel's team have discovered a new form of intentional binding: between intention and action.
Since the work of Kornhuber and Libet, as more scientists examined the time between an individual perceiving a voluntary decision and that decision turning into action, it has been becoming clearer that the timing of brain activity in relation to a voluntary decision depends on where in the brain one looks.
Through multiple attempts to understand the brain's goings-on in the moments leading up to a voluntary action, scientists have mapped the parts that light up with electrical activity as an individual consciously develops an urge to take some voluntary action as well as areas that light up with the conscious perception of having taken the action. In the new study, Noel et al. have added to this knowledge by revealing the role the M1 area plays with the start of a conscious decision to take some action and during the execution.
Where are you looking?
In the last few decades, cognitive neuroscientists have found that a single voluntary decision for an individual involves multiple different slices in their brain. There's the slice of 'what' decision to make, 'when' to make it, 'whether or not' to translate that decision to action. Activities in various parts of the brain correspond to different slices and the timing of brain activity in relation to a voluntary decision depends on which slice is examined. So if we look in the premotor or parietal cortical areas, we find them activated before a voluntary movement has occurred.
The new study shows that the M1 area integrates signals from premotor-parietal areas, which explains its activity in the moments leading up to the voluntary action. The specific way the tests were set up made it possible for the researchers to separate M1 activity due to intention from its activity due to action. In a situation where a decision is converted to action, that of reaching for the remote in the example earlier, M1 activity relays that decision down to the spinal cord and to muscles of the arm.
The fact that the study was conducted with a single tetraplegic participant raises obvious questions about whether its findings can be generalised. In another recent study in Nature Communications, Noel collaborated with Italian scientist Tommaso Bertoni to examine the same question in 30 healthy participants. They aimed to study the participants' brain activity using electrodes placed on their scalps (in contrast to electrodes implanted inside the M1 area of the brain). The results have supported the role of the M1 area of the brain in translating voluntary decisions to actions, adding further credence to the findings by Noel and team in their paper.
Dr. Reeteka Sud is a neuroscientist by training and senior scientist at the Center for Brain and Mind, Department of Psychiatry, NIMHANS, Bengaluru.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The Promise And Peril Of A Crewed Mars Mission
The Promise And Peril Of A Crewed Mars Mission

NDTV

time3 hours ago

  • NDTV

The Promise And Peril Of A Crewed Mars Mission

A crewed mission to Mars would rank among the most complex and costly undertakings in human history -- and US President Donald Trump has vowed to make it a national priority. That political momentum, coupled with SpaceX chief Elon Musk's zeal, has breathed new life into a cause long championed by Red Planet advocates -- even as major obstacles remain, including Trump and Musk's latest feud. Why go? As NASA writes in its Moon to Mars blueprint, "exploration of the cosmos remains a great calling for humanity." A mission to Mars would pursue scientific objectives like determining whether Mars ever hosted life and charting the evolution of its surface, as well as answering broader space physics questions -- such as the history of the Sun through studying Martian soil. Geopolitics also looms large, as Trump has pledged to "plant the American flag on the planet Mars and even far beyond," invoking the "unlimited promise of the American dream." Critics, however, say cuts to NASA's science budget and the cancellation of key projects -- including the return of rock samples collected by the Perseverance rover -- are undermining the research mission. "The purpose of exploration is not just to go somewhere," Nobel-winning astrophysicist John Mather told AFP. "This is not a tourist thing. This is a fundamental knowledge thing." Getting there Musk is betting SpaceX's future on Starship, the largest rocket ever built, despite fiery failures in its nine test flights. He's aiming for an uncrewed launch by late 2026, timed with the next favorable Earth-Mars alignment. But the timeline is widely seen as optimistic: Starship has yet to land its upper stage or demonstrate in-orbit refueling -- both essential for deep space travel. Some experts believe the system is fundamentally sound, while others say it's too soon to judge. "A lot of the pertinent and relevant technical information... is not known to us," Kurt Polzin, chief engineer for NASA's space nuclear propulsion project, told AFP. He backs Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (NTP), which uses fission to heat hydrogen and generate thrust. NTP delivers "a lot of power in a very small package," Polzin said, eliminating the need for orbital refueling or fuel production on Mars. Astronauts would spend seven to nine months in a cramped spacecraft, exposed to intense space radiation beyond Earth's magnetosphere. Ideas to improve radiation shielding range from passive methods, like using dense materials, to active concepts such as plasma fields that deflect radiation, while drugs are being developed to reduce cell damage. Without a system to simulate gravity -- such as rotational spin -- crews would also need grueling exercise routines to counteract muscle and bone loss. Mental health is another concern. Growing plants aboard -- more for morale than sustenance -- has proved beneficial on the ISS. Communication delays further complicate matters. On the station, real-time data has helped prevent an average of 1.7 potentially fatal incidents per year, said Erik Antonsen, chair of NASA's human systems risk board -- but such communication will not be possible en route to Mars. Life on Mars Once on the surface, the uncertainties grow. Probes and rovers have found hints -- organic molecules, seasonal methane -- but no definitive signs of life. If it ever existed, it likely died out long ago. Still, Earth's own "extremophiles" offer intriguing clues -- from fungi that harness Chernobyl's radiation for energy, to microbes that survived 500,000 years in frozen stasis. "If they can survive here in extreme environments, we have every reason to suspect they can be on Mars," said NASA astrobiologist Jennifer Eigenbrode at the recent Humans to the Moon and Mars Summit. And while NASA has decided nuclear fission will power surface operations, other choices -- from crop selection to habitat design -- remain open. "Mars has a 24-hour, 39-minute day -- that small difference creates strain, increases stress, and reduces sleep quality," said Phnam Bagley, a space architect who designs for comfort and crew well-being -- critical factors in preventing conflict. The first trip would be around 500 days on the surface, but long-term colonization raises deeper questions. For instance, scientists don't yet know whether mammalian embryos can develop in low gravity -- or what childbirth on Mars would entail. "I think it's really important to take that seriously," said NASA's Antonsen. "Even if you don't plan on it happening, people are still going to have sex, and somebody might get pregnant. Then it becomes a medical issue."

In Trump vs Musk battle, Nasa is the biggest loser
In Trump vs Musk battle, Nasa is the biggest loser

India Today

time3 hours ago

  • India Today

In Trump vs Musk battle, Nasa is the biggest loser

US President Donald Trump and his once closest aide Elon Musk are at loggerheads days after the billionaire engineer decided to reduce his political role in the Trump administration and re-focus on his multi-million dollar companies Tesla, SpaceX and X.A major feud erupted as Trump and Musk took to social media platforms Truth Social and X, respectively, to berate each other so much that Trump threatened to cancel Musk's government contracts, and Musk hit back with threats of decommissioning the Dragon spacecraft, key to the American space exploration the bitter feud between the two, Nasa has emerged as the biggest loser as it balances between prioritising Musk and Trump. While Trump has certain plans for Nasa, the American space agency is heavily dependent on Musk's SpaceX for most of its operations in the Low Earth Orbit. WHAT HAPPENED? The dispute escalated after Musk publicly criticised a key spending bill backed by the Trump administration, calling it an 'abomination'. Trump responded on his social media platform by suggesting that axing Musk's government contracts would save the US billions and questioned why such action hadn't already been declared on X, "In light of the President's statement about the cancellation of my government contracts, @SpaceX will begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft immediately".However, he later decided to not go ahead with the IS THE BIGGEST LOSERThe Trump vs Musk feud shows the vulnerability of Nasa as the American space agency is largely dependent on Elon Musk's SpaceX for transporting crew and cargo to the International Space Station. The Dragon spacecraft, which is subsidised by the US government, is the lone vehicle that is ferrying American and allied astronauts to the Space Station to ensure its smooth operation until 2030. SpaceX is also one of the biggest contractors for Nasa and the US Space Force for launching their satellites, probes and missions to Low Earth Orbit and geostationary orbit and even in deep space. The reusable rocket fleet is used by global players and SpaceX conducts those launches from Nasa's launch has also been contracted to crash the Space Station in 2030 at the end of its life. The company is building a vehicle that will be used to gradually lower its orbit before it burns up in the atmosphere. The Trump vs Musk feud shows the vulnerability of Nasa. (Photo: Reuters) Meanwhile, Nasa is still looking for a permanent administrator to run the show. Days after Musk distanced himself from the Trump government, the administration pulled back its support for Jared Issacman, who was nominated to be the next Nasa boss. Issacman is a close confidant of Musk and has flown on several missions to space aboard the Dragon was also the first private astronaut to conduct a spacewalk as he stepped on top of the Dragon spacecraft flying above is still reeling from the budget cuts and firings that were ushered during Elon Musk's White House stint as the head of Doge, a body formed by Trump to enhance efficiency and cut down spending. Several missions are looking at delays due to budgetary friends to foes as the Trump-Musk relationship evolves, Nasa is still trying to understand which side to pick as two of the world's most publicly outspoken leaders negotiate its fate and Reel

Musk-Trump feud threatens billions in SpaceX deals, risks US space goals
Musk-Trump feud threatens billions in SpaceX deals, risks US space goals

Business Standard

time7 hours ago

  • Business Standard

Musk-Trump feud threatens billions in SpaceX deals, risks US space goals

Elon Musk and Donald Trump's spat on Thursday has escalated from online exchanges to potential real-world consequences, threatening a key part of the US space programme. After Trump threatened to cancel all federal contracts with Musk, putting a significant source of revenue for SpaceX at risk, Musk said that he would decommission SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft, which ferries cargo and astronauts to the International Space Station for the US. However, he later appeared to back down, reported Bloomberg. SpaceX, the world's leading rocket launcher, also holds lucrative contracts with the Pentagon to launch national security satellites and is developing a spacecraft aimed at landing American astronauts on the Moon within two years. While Musk voiced his criticism on his social media platform X, Trump fired back during a meeting with the German Chancellor and through posts on his own site, Truth Social. However, the question remains whether either will carry out their threats. SpaceX's critical role in US space and defence The Bloomberg report quoted a senior fellow at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, saying that cutting contracts with SpaceX would trigger a domino effect across many critical US government functions, especially within the Pentagon and Nasa. 'Right now, no other company can match what SpaceX provides,' he said. SpaceX, valued at around $350 billion and one of the world's most valuable start-ups, has secured over $22 billion in unclassified contracts from the Department of Defense and Nasa since 2000. Nasa awarded SpaceX nearly $4 billion to help land US astronauts on the Moon. The agency's dependence on SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft for missions to the International Space Station has increased, particularly due to delays with Boeing's Starliner programme. SpaceX also holds an $843 million contract to safely decommission the ISS at the end of its mission. Earlier this week, Musk revealed that SpaceX earned approximately $1.1 billion from Nasa contracts in 2025 alone. SpaceX's Starlink satellite internet service, which provides broadband access to rural areas and holds contracts with the Pentagon, could also face jeopardy. According to Peter Hays, a professorial lecturer at George Washington University's Space Policy Institute, 'Musk has launched more satellites than the rest of the world combined. It wouldn't be simple to just cut ties with him.' SpaceX, alongside Boeing, Lockheed Martin's United Launch Alliance (ULA), and soon Blue Origin, plays a vital role in launching US national security missions, including surveillance satellites for the Pentagon. However, Blue Origin has only recently introduced its New Glenn rocket, and ULA is still struggling to increase its launch capacity, leaving the Space Force and the National Reconnaissance Office heavily reliant on SpaceX. The report quoted Todd Harrison, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, saying, 'They can't really cut off SpaceX without having a severe impact on the military space capabilities.' According to Harrison, the conflict between Trump and Musk could affect the future of the Golden Dome missile defence system. If the administration decides to use a design less dependent on space technology, SpaceX might face fewer contract opportunities. 'This dispute could influence the final design choices for the Golden Dome system,' he said. Legal authority and challenges to contract cancellation It remains uncertain whether Trump can unilaterally cancel contracts or revoke subsidies granted to SpaceX. Contract awards and cancellations are meant to be free from political influence, and if the President acts on his threats, SpaceX could sue for breach of contract. Even if the administration tries to end the contract through standard procedures, the public statements by the President could provide grounds to challenge the termination. Terminating federal contracts is both costly and politically sensitive. Most contracts include a 'termination for convenience' clause, but exercising this often requires the government to compensate contractors for billions of dollars in lost expenses. Moreover, only designated contracting officers, not the President, have the legal authority to sign or cancel federal contracts, according to a Bloomberg report. The report quoted Caryn Schenewerk, a space industry consultant and law professor at Georgetown University who formerly worked at SpaceX, stating, 'You can't just flip a switch. There are established procedures and responsibilities that must be followed to cancel contracts.' Improper handling of contract cancellations could expose the government to further legal battles, especially given Musk's history of litigation. In 2014, Musk sued the Air Force to allow SpaceX to compete for national security satellite launches but dropped the suit when the Air Force opened the contract to competition.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store